WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION of a group of media-savvy right-wing activists the Auckland Mayor’s extramarital affair would probably have remained secret. Should we thank Cameron Slater and Stephen Cook for exposing what Len Brown clearly hoped to hide from Auckland voters? Or, should we lament the fact that the line between private and public behaviour has now become so blurred that it is no longer clear where the politicians’ private lives end and their public role begins?
That the right-wingers involved include the proprietor of the Whaleoil Blog, Cameron Slater; Stephen Cook, a journalist with a somewhat chequered career; and a young right-wing publicist, Luigi Wewege; has encouraged those on the Left of New Zealand politics to condemn the exposé as an exercise in sleaze. Concerns have been voiced that Mr Slater and his colleagues have “crossed a line” and that, henceforth, no one’s private life can be considered safe from those who stand to gain politically by thrusting it into the public’s gaze.
It is argued that the New Zealand news media’s longstanding reluctance to dig too deeply into the private lives of public figures will not survive the intrusion of ruthless political bloggers anxious to boost page-views and unrestrained by the ethical considerations of professional journalism. Indeed, to keep themselves in the game those same professional journalists will now feel obliged to stay one step ahead of their no-holds-barred competitors in the blogosphere. By this reckoning, from the moment such a journalistic race to the bottom gets underway nobody’s secrets will be considered off-limits.
But, perhaps the Left should pause for a moment and ask itself how it would have reacted if someone had come to them with information that a politically ambitious but emotionally vulnerable young left-wing woman had been drawn into a sexual relationship with a powerful right-wing mayor. A local government politician who was not only a married man with three young daughters, but who had also stood on a “family values” platform, and been swept into office on the votes of thousands of Christian social-conservatives. Aware that rumours of his affair were already circulating, this right-wing mayor was, nevertheless, gambling that the young woman’s natural discretion would prevent private gossip from escalating into a fully-fledged public scandal.
What would the editor of a left-wing blog have done with this information?
If he had consulted his feminist contributors what would they have advised? Wouldn’t they have insisted that since “the personal is political” it simply cannot be acceptable for powerful male politicians to parade their proudest achievements before the voters’ gaze, even as their not-so-proud moments are hustled behind a door marked “Private” – and kept from public view.
Other contributors might have demanded to know exactly where, on the Mayor’s list of priorities, they should look to find his commitment to keeping the promises he made to the voters, especially when the promises he made to his wife and family (presumably the most important of his life) were so easily forgotten?
Possessing the means of, at least, deeply embarrassing such a right-wing mayor and, quite possibly, ensuring his defeat, what should the left-wing blogger do? If he does nothing, then there is every chance that the Right will become so deeply entrenched in the city’s political structures that it will be able to govern indefinitely. Given what such an outcome would likely mean for the city’s ordinary citizens, how could the Left possibly justify NOT using the information that has fallen into its hands?
Democracy struggles to preserve even the rudiments of a restrained and self-limiting politics when the issues dividing citizens loom so much larger than the experiences which unite them. That they do so is unquestionably the fault of the Right whose all-embracing neoliberal ideology has led its followers to characterise compromise as betrayal, and every other explanation of reality as heresy.
We have seen this kind of politics on display in the United States over the past fortnight, where the Republicans were prepared to take their country to the very brink of disaster before pulling back – until January!
What has made the Right so unrelenting that those on the Left feel unable to do anything other than respond in kind?
In a 2012 article for The New Yorker, Ryan Lizza quoted Thomas Mann, of the Brookings Institution, and Norman Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, from their book, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks:
“One of our two major parties, the Republicans, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”
The small group of right-wingers who exposed Len Brown’s affair with Bevan Chuang are cut from cloth very similar to that of the Republican Party’s “Tea Party” faction. Certainly, Cameron Slater and his colleagues revel in their “insurgent outlier” status and are equally “dismissive of the legitimacy” of even the moderate (some would say right-wing) labourism of Auckland’s mayor. They did not hesitate to cross the line between private and public.
But those of us on the left of New Zealand politics should not deceive ourselves that, presented with a similar opportunity to damage our right-wing political opponents, we would not seize it with both hands. Haven’t we watched the hapless Democratic Party in the United States attempt to deal with its Republican opponents as if they were reasonable men? And haven’t we seen the party of Roosevelt required to trade away more and more of its proudest achievements?
The only problem with fighting the extremists’ fire with fire of equal intensity is that, increasingly, democracy itself is at risk of being consumed in the flames.
Please tell me that you will never use that font again – it’s given me a headache !
“Concerns have been voiced that Mr Slater and his colleagues have “crossed a line” and that, henceforth, no one’s private life can be considered safe from those who stand to gain politically by thrusting it into the public’s gaze.”
Cameron Slater has “crossed the line” repeatedly, and he is an utter embarrassment to the blogger community. He has no shame and will go further, the further the law will let him (that is as long as he is not successfully sued by someone).
The left, yes the media also, will be well advised to not lower themselves, and to fight fire with fire, so to say. What needs to be done, and it is happening to a degree now, is to expose Slater and his fellows, and to shame them. I heard him being challenged on Checkpoint on Radio NZ National by Mary, on having pushed that Bevan Chaung to collaborate in all this.
She must have been willing to a degree, but she was in the end most likely told, hey, we get this sorted, we have someone get your affidavit ready, and we will take you to the JP or Court Registrar, and there you can sign at the dotted line. Perhaps they even paid her something.
So NO WAY should left blogs or left leaning media persons, or politicians lower themselves to Slater and the gutter level, it will spell a disaster for New Zealand. It is bad already, and my largest gripe has been and still is, that the mainstream media do hardly bother to dig into matters that bloody well should be researched, analysed and exposed. There is plenty of it, but they just deliver superficial nonsense, easy, comfy news, nothing that harms the government and John Key, and that basically lulls people into indifference and infotainment mood.
This new “scandal” of an “affair” and so is fodder they quickly feed on, and the temptation is there to exploit such “news” to the extreme, rather than report on more important matters.
We need a return to true journalism, and we must uphold some decent, minimum standards. The sex lives of persons should only be talked about if they lead to inappropriate behaviour in other areas.
That line to such has regrettably been crossed by Len Brown providing a highly supportive reference (through a staffer) to the Auckland Art Gallery leaders, so they employed his then mistress. He should have disclosed his conflict of interest, or otherwise not have provided a reference, as the Gallery is Council operated.
But Slater only presented that today, seemingly to just drive the final nail into Brown’s coffin, and to justify the filth he exposed before.
Even Parliament is slowly becoming a theatre of game playing, of abuse and questionable conduct, as anyone can see, who ever bothers watching question time. A biased and somewhat incompetent Speaker does not help.
Interesting conundrum this Chris. Ends vs means. Private good vs public. The fact is that both the right and the left’s histories are littered with incidents where ‘minor players’ ( sometimes tens of thousands of individuals) were sacrificed in the pursuit of some apparently laudable grand plan.
The result in the long run has always been the sullying and destruction of the end.
No, the exploitation of an extraordinarily naive and ambitious young woman and the damage done to family of this left-leaning politician was not justified. Nor would it have been had it been a parallel case at the other end of the political spectrum. Politics may be, as they say, about compromise. But there comes a time when the compromising of core values to achieve a goal makes the goal a lie.
No way is Ms Chuang as naive as is being made out. She thrived on attention and while this is negative attention she is not so stupid surely as to not expect this. We only have Slater and Cook’s word for it that she is of fragile mind. How’s this for a conspiracy story- she’s sunning herself in Hawaii with the others who have gone to ground, doing it on a beach somewhere. Listening to Slater on Checkpoint blaming the media for her ‘fragile state of mind’ is astounding. What did he expect to happen? Disingenuous to say the least. Of course when something so meaty as this happens, interest is peaked. The phrase we are only human has arisen more than once. One would hope though that the left would leave out the disgusting detail which I presume was done not only to shame Brown but to put him so far on the left foot, he now has two left feet. He is, one would imagine a timid man (ports of Akld, rugby World Cup). Trouble with the left is they do have a social conscience and an openness to the human condition. That’s what makes them left. The tactics Slater and co use are taken from the manual of undercover infiltrators. Ideologically extreme, focused on the goal, buggar the people, lies are the new truth, dismissive of opposition and people (suckers) in general. But the other aspect of this is that they also need a source of power that enables them to play a game where the only rule is to win. Undercover cops have the power of the police, GCSB have the GCSB and the prime minister, wonder where Slater’s source of power comes from? There’s another layer to this that everyone is missing and no one in the news media is stepping back from it to have another look. That’s the bit that interests me.
Would the left attack a right wing mayor? Probably. But unlike the United States, no one seems to be particularly concerned about morality being a central issue – hence the desperate search by the media of some ethical improprietry to keep this story going.
The big difference is that in this country we are much more Godless and most people really don”t care if Brown had an affair. The culture wars, the engine that drives the politics of extremism in the United States, – is largely absent here. Without a willing audience of racist Southern white successionists Slater has no continuency for his project.
So this issue has already cleaved along the pedictable partisan lines, particularly as the fingerprints of the right’s smear machine are all over these revelations. The usual talking heads are spouting the usual opinions. In a country where opinion is cheap and real stories are thin on the ground, this story will go on until everyone is thoroughly bored with the whole thing. And Len Brown will still be mayor of Auckland, and Cameron Slater will still be a gutter-dwellling sleaze merchant.
Slater, Wewege and Cook have failed by being too crass with their release. Sure, that website would have got a few hits, and dragged some simpletons to their gutter, both now and in the future. However, the Three Moronic Musketeers lose because their lack of intelligence, remorse and ability is clear for us all to see. Overall they have lost respect from many people and as National’s megaphone, they have disempowered themselves and the National Party. Any releases from the sperm-whale will now be looked at with more suspicion and the MSM will be less likely to reference them. Also, National can no longer use the sperm-whale to push their agenda because he’s blatantly exposed how his ‘blog’ is nothing more than a grubby greasy tool that the tories use to pleasure themselves with.
Len Brown will emerge from this relatively unscathed, losing a bit of support from conservative minded people, but gaining support from others based on empathy and one important fact; Len Brown never lied about this to the people he represents.
The biggest losers from this are Len Brown’s family and Bevan Chuang.
Chuang was at least at some stage a willing victim, but Len Brown’s family are innocent victims…both of these points will most likely empower Len Brown over the long run. Everyone loves a fallible leader, so long as they don’t lie to, or deceive, the public.
That is why the left need us. The anarchists. Yes we are extreme – yes we not beloved by the general population. and yes our message is harsh – democracy is in trouble, big trouble – and it will take more than nice words to have a true democracy.
Indeed it will take some serious spine and commitment – to embrace democracy and freedom. As many in the left have fallen victim to the lies and the fears this socio-political situation has produced.
But anarchists also not wet, nor wimpish, and the anarch-fems are not to be messed with.
Our gift to the left – is we are outside your political parties and organizations – you can’t be tared with the same brush. So we can say and do the things we know you want to – but you know it would hurt the left.
So let me start. Slater and company are totalitarian bullies who hate women. They take money from extremist who hate anything which is not white and male. They talk tolerance of gays and people of colour, but get them drunk and that facade falls away.
So I agree with Chris – You lefties keep your hands clean. Let the anarchist fight the dirty fight. It’s what we do best.
The optimal strategy in this case is simple and time honoured. For those opponents who obey the rules, obey the rules. Those who disobey the rules, like Cam Slater, are fair game.
Sex does not recognise class. It wants to be free.
Left and right individuals who subscribe to bourgeois morality are all trapped in the contradiction between the particularistic values of the bourgeois family serving capitalism, and the universalistic drive to free sex.
True left wingers would resolve this contradiction by refusing to subscribe to bourgeois morality and instead advocate free sex.
That means they would hold leaders of both left and right accountable not to the bourgeois standards of morality but to the universal standards of sexual freedom.
Bourgeois society is collapsing having claimed the universality of the Enlightenment it has trashed it on the altar of profit. And with it goes the bourgeois family which has sacrificed sexual freedom to repression and violence.
Self-proclaimed spokespersons for the left who argue that we must all be accountable to bourgeois morality are on the wrong side of history.
Going by that, most “socialists” and “social democrats” must therefore be “bourgeois”, given their sexual conservatism.
Sorry, this is just a voice by a “free sex” supporter, which is fair enough, but most choose to stick with one, or a few selected partners, and they are quite happy with that, left, right or centre, it does not matter.
Hence I would avoid mixing sexual preference matters too much into political questions. Also “the collective” would carry the health costs for treating STDs, which do have more “fertile” grounds the more they are allowed to “spread” if no condoms are used. Some may be happy with that, others may feel concerned.
Not all is as “free” and “socialisable”, as it may see fit. So that makes me a “conservative” then, I suppose. Nevertheless I would never feel comfy with Colin Craig, nor John Key or that John Banks character.
I am starting to wonder now, if I am in the right place here.
It seems that young women are attracted to power and money like moths to a flame as old men you youth and that almost uncontrollable urge to get their end in.
We’re almost over the moral argument and I hope that most like me haven’t bothered to care about the social politics.
But what is concerning is that this shit gets used in public politics and that a privileged few may use the GCSB to find fuel for muck raking as in US politics.
It’s really easy to sort out what you do on this issue. If you’ve got any compassion and empathy you don’t drag Len Brown’s family through the muck. It’s that simple.
If we want to think we’ve got something better to offer than the selfishness that characterises the right then that’s the bottom line. It worries me that the innocent victims in all this aren’t mentioned in the article and only one comment so far brings it up. You can discuss strategy and ideology all you like but if you cross that line then you’ve already lost the battle and you’ve become part of the problem.
Slater and his his equally hideous mates on the other hand deserve everything that’s coming their way, the best part of which is that they’re too tainted now to get very close to the leavers of power.
I think people should stop and reflect that none of us know what promises Len made to his wife that were broken by this, if any. By saying she shouldn’t be dragged into it, etc, we are doing exactly that. We should all just have a cold shower and move on.
There we go, that’s exactly what I mean Ovicula, you’ve just come up with an arguement that means we don’t have to care about Len Brown’s family. May be you didn’t mean to write it that way but you seem to be implying that she’s somehow complicit – the only conclusion of which is that Len Brown and his wife some kind of open relationship.
Unless you know this for a fact, or even if you didn’t mean to imply this it’s still a weak attempt to make it OK to drag Len’s family through the muck.
If we’re doing that then we’re just another political animal.
Hopelessly naive, I hear you say? Maybe, but I’d rather retain my compassion and stay human than become like that.
If it were a right wing dude caught out in an affair? Well, let’s look at that shall we? Many decades ago now, I believe Muldoon might have been PM at the time, a certain right wing politician had sought to carve out a name for moral rectitude. Did quite a bit of tub thumping on the topic he did. For a while.
Turned out he was a regular customer of one of Wellington’s shining red lights, eh.
Now, here’s a thing. Do you ‘out’ the guy for his marital infidelities – which, after all, are private matters? Or do you ‘out’ the guy for his public hypocrisy? Hypocrisy in politics is a matter for the public if a public stand is at issue.
OK, you might spring the news upon an appalled public, or you might suggest,with arm-round-the-shoulder concern: ‘Ease up on the tub-thumping rhetoric, boyo, lest it all turn to shark infested custard and bite you on the bum’.
So far as Len Brown’s affair is concerned, I regard it as a private matter between – among – private individuals. So far as I can make out, it does not impact upon Len’s Brown’s capacity as Mayor – unless one accepts that perhaps this demonstrates a lack of the firmness, integrity and strength of character one expects of a political leader. Even then we are getting into ‘casting the first stone’ country. Can any of Mr Brown’s detractors point to their own different behaviour faced with the same temptations? Would we trust anyone who would make such a boast?
Tricky issue. For mine, Mr Slater was wrong to pursue this line in public – but I do commend his response when it was suggested he might have gone to Mr Brown quietly with a proposal that the thing would fade away if he stood down. ‘I don’t do blackmail,’ was in effect his appalled answer to that.
So he was up front. But as the topic didn’t really touch upon Mr Brown’s public politics, pronouncements and projects, I don’t see that the thing was worthy of drawing to the public’s attention.
Cheers,
Ion
Comments are closed.